Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

prosperity

Regulars
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by prosperity

  1. I would actually say that it is a loan, it's just a different type of loan. Revolving lines of credit are inherently problematic because they are not a fixed type of loan with an amortization schedule and a maturity date.
  2. There is no conflict. If you read their contract and it says that they can do whatever they want, then that is something you sort out BEFORE you sign on the dotted line. The fact that you want something doesn't mean that you are entitled to it. This is essentially saying that you deserve $xx.xx amount of credit regardless of your contract, credit, or internal practices of the business. A lot of people would laugh at this, but the credit card companies are becoming slaves of the cardholders.
  3. Is there a way to make a sticky out of this topic? It seems to come up a lot.
  4. You really have to be careful about these broad assertions. This can be true, but if there was no market for it, it wouldn't exist. There is a value there and the value is that, if done properly, people click on these ads to go to find things that they really need and or want. Google is not an idiot. They track conversions and will adjust your earnings if you start sending advertisers crap traffic. It's really ingenious I think as a self-regulating mechanism. The advertiser wins (obviously), the customer wins, because he finds what he is looking for (proved by the conversion) and the publisher wins by revenue share with google. By the way, google is pretty decent at sorting out irrelevant info from relevant info. They are pretty good at punishing spam blogs and sites. So, while the content may not be exactly the best or most interesting on some of these sites, it does connect people to the products they are looking for. Some of these advertisers either don't know how to do SEO or aren't interested in it. Even the spammers only last a short while until they get slapped by google. Now, a really good example of how this is done correctly I think is askthebuilder.com I am attempting to do something similar with my blog. His model is simple. Provide useful information for free, and then provide the google adwords on his site to provide the tools they'll need for the projects he describes. When done properly, it rakes in a lot of money.
  5. Hmmm, I think the argument was lost in the specifics. The anti-deregulation argument I hear uses that as an example. But the argument is actually that businesses would sell deadly products and "get away with it" because there were no immediate consequences. The examples that exist are (allegedly) alcohol and cigs. Of course, my response has always been take responsibility for yourself. Depending on the argument, you could make a case for consumer reports type associations that rate companies/products. Some people find that unconvincing though. I was wondering if there was a better argument I hadn't thought of.
  6. I wonder if Obama regrets saying that stuff about Americans and their guns? Actually, he's probably forgotten it by now.
  7. What baffles me was he was so blatant about it. "Gold Confiscation Act". I mean, how do you make it illegal to own property??????? As for the 401ks, they're not safe either. Remember these are trust accounts held for the benefit of you and your beneficiaries. They can very easily change the rules on those again. Who knows. We may end up with the accumulation penalty again - or some entirely new and creative rule or penalty - to try to recoup funds for paying for any number of debts "we" are racking up.
  8. Why do you think it's reasonable? Can anyone promise that the current system of Government owned anything will "work" in the sense you presented? No. The Government can talk a good game, but Government institutions have failed in the past and they are failing now - terribly. Immediate success or failure isn't the deciding factor of moral issues. Trying to explain that privatization works - and that is the reason we should work towards a capitalistic system - is just defending Capitalism on the grounds of utilitarianism. But then what do you do when you run up against someone who doesn't care about practicality, like Obama? You don't have a moral justification for it under a utilitarian defense. In fact, you end up defending it with an argument of depravity, which is the same argument the liberals use for Socialism.
  9. This sounds like the psychology of a woman who get beaten by her husband and continues to stay with him. She doesn't like being hit, but she doesn't know that she doesn't deserve to be hit, so she stays and/or doesn't defend herself.
  10. I agree with Capitalism Forever...things will change - and I think they will change quickly - when genuine producers realize their own self-worth, stop feeling guilty for their earned values and realize that they are the ones with all of the legit power. Remember, the evil needs the good, not the other way 'round. Not that Govenrment is inherently evil...I hope you get my drift.
  11. The real situation is of course, serious, but I still thought this presentation was funny. There are a lot of acronyms to remember this year: http://radioactiveliberty.com/economic-rec...stimulus-humor/
  12. Since Capitalism is a system where all property is privately owned (competition is a side effect, not an essential - most social-political systems have competition within the system), I'm not sure how or why you would bring up the issue of whether it "works". If you turn all property into private hands, then you are strengthening property rights to its full. If you make roads privately owned for example, then you have made roads privately owned. It "works", which means you have done it. Once you sell off the Government's interest in all of the roadways systems, it has "worked". Are you saying that there would be a problem making all property privately owned (thus it wouldn't "work")? Or are you suggesting there is an "is/ought" problem with private ownership?
  13. Interesting thread. I'd like to present some opposition, not from me, but common objections that have been presented to me by family members, friends, and acquaintances in support of regulation in these areas. I haven't been able to give what I think is a good counter to their arguments because they are giving concrete examples of issues which do exist or could exist based on issues that do exist, but there may be some history that I am not familiar with as to why these issues exist. Pro-Regulation counter-argument: (this usually comes up after explaining that the FDA and drug companies collude) Supposing what you say about drug companies working with the FDA to alter or suppress information to protect drug companies from competition, allow them to turn out inferior products, etc. Suppose there is no FDA and they just do the same thing, except they turn to the media and other outlets of information to "buy them off", then what? Now that you don't have a regulatory agency, how do you protect people if the news media is bought and paid for? This one is a little "out there" but I've heard people say variations of it. The presumption is that - again - even if Government is corrupt, their brand of corruption is better than free-market corruption. I thin kit goes back to the idea that the free-market is inherently corrupt, which is why they trust Big Government over free-enterprise. Ideas? Pro-Regulation counter-argument: We already have this scenario where businessmen do sell products that kill people. Cigarettes, Alcohol, and what is that? You want to legalize narcotics too? Man, that's crazy. Do we need more businesses selling deadly products? Additionally, pharmaceutical companies make more money selling a drug that treats symptoms rather than selling drugs that solve the problem. Some of them have nasty side effects but it's all about the $$$. Capitalism is evil. My response: People just need to take more responsibility for themselves (businesses included). That should solve any perceived problem of inferior products, but at this point the collective attitude is running wild in the other person and they are not convinced that personal responsibility is "enough" because "we're only human". Now we're on a religious argument about "the depravity of man". Thoughts? Ideas?
  14. Great speech! That was awesome.
  15. Do you want your writing to get read? If so, and this may sound odd, but hang out in the grocery store reading the National Enquirer. I would also study good advertising copywriters. People who make their living by getting people to read and respond to their writing - people like Dan Kennedy, as well as the late Gary Halbert, David Ogilvy, and Claude Hopkins. I'm not sure you want to eliminate emotion altogether. You may get caught up in a reason/emotion dichotomy and lose your reader's interest. I think for the most part, there are a lot of folks who like to feel connected to what they are reading - otherwise...why are they reading it? My educated guess is that it has something to do with the writer making the reader feel psychologically visible while the writer still conveys their ideas (which can be rational or irrational).
  16. I think you may see individuals attempting to expand on issues that Rand did not have time to do, or did not do for other reasons. Like her epistemology, for example. She only got as far as "an introduction".
  17. The patent on playing with cats is actually kind of funny. Funny I think because it sounds absurd. Ditto for the patent on method of swinging.
  18. I think it depends on what you are doing with the land that determines whether you own it or not. If you are just passing through, then no. If you are working the land, and no one else has previously made a claim to working the land, then I think you end up with ownership of the land because you've made it into something useful to yourself by applying reason to the problem of your survival needs or wants. Does that fall within the "alter and control" you are talking about?
  19. Oh yes, there are "tea parties" forming all over America. Whether it is enough remains to be seen.
  20. I agree. I don't think it exists either. It doesn't even really exist in the short run. it's just a variation on the broken window fallacy. We have so much more to endure, I think. I've often thought about which direction the U.S. should go... ...what I mean is...I'm wondering how strong America's resolve is. Do the people of this country have a strong enough sense of individualism and selfishness to swing this nation the other way if or when it continues to get worse? Let's suppose that Obama's administration signs another bill that spends $4-$6 trillion during his first term. Then his administration signs the child's rights treaty, and then on top of that let's assume that his administration saps the strength of the rich so badly that - in combination with with the health care reforms in the stimulus bill - these rich people start "cue jumping" or buying their way to the front of the line for the best services, similar to how it is done in Cuba. The middle class become outraged at this and the rich get another round of tax increases which pummel them into oblivion, innovation halts, new drugs stop being invented and tested and people start dying as a direct result...or Obama has to start raising taxes on middle class Americans - effectively lying to them - to fulfill his agenda, meet his budget demands, and of course satisfy his lust for power. The particulars are guesses in some cases...but if things were to get much much worse than they are now...would that be enough for American's come the next election where they will demand capitalism and a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of Government intervention into the economy? Or do you think that it's dangerous to juggle such sharp knives? Is a slow decay and a possible slow recovery, or a quick decline followed by a rapid change in direction better?
  21. No problem. I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly, thus I asked a question.
  22. Children have rights? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25...y-erode-rights/ The details of the treaty: http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Ty...7-08789FBE3C0A} ...so, basically, if you have a child and you tell him to go mow the lawn, the Government can step in and say "wait a minute, this is violating his right to leisure, he/she doesn't have to mow the lawn"????
  23. Are you saying that the metaphysically given cannot be "owned"? Only Man-made facts are subject to property rights?
  24. I think this was discussed in OPAR. If I remember correctly, it largely depended on how it was asserted. If the arbitrary is being asserted, then knowledge of that arbitrary idea is not possible. It's neither true nor false. Cognitively, there is no way to analyze such a "concept". I think the concept of "god" was taken to be arbitrary, because one just starts out imagining some arbitrary being, claiming they exist. I think that applied to goblins also but could be mistaken. Seems that it is an arbitrary assertion.
×
×
  • Create New...